Charleville repro Miroku vs. Pedersoli reputation

[springfield art]

They’re both very different style muskets, even though they’re titled the same they’re not the same.

The miroku charleville, is as faithful and genuine a reproduction you can get to an original 1766, it’s slightly heavier than an original, but not by much. A miroku Charleville is patterned after a late model 1766, one that was made with a rear band spring but not stepped at the forearm like the later 1768 and 1769 variants.

Early model 1766’s had a friction fit rear and and a front band that had a slightly taper at the mouth, the one pictured below is an early model 1766.

The pedersoli 1763/66 is not an odd one to explain, it’s not really true to any specific pattern but has all of the size features of a heavy model 1763, mostly the stock.

Compared to an original 1766, the pedersoli musket is massive, everything is much larger, even the band springs.

The stock is more robust in the wrist and butt and forearm like a 1763, however doesn’t stay true to any real pattern. A 1763 had a high comb like the pedersoli however, the cross section of an original 1763 swelled significantly compared to it, The swell deeply defined the flutes. The wrist and butt were also slightly longer with a larger breech area to accommodate a barrel with a breech that was almost 1.575 tall and 1.55 wide. The originals I’ve measured are an average of 1.450 at the breech. The pedersoli breech is around 1.325”.

An original 1763 was in a minimum of .69 and maximum caliber of .72 with a barrel that tapered significantly from from breech to muzzle, the pedersoli barrel is pretty straight. Both barrels have a weight around 5lbs, the heaviest original I’ve weighed was 5.25 lbs with much of the weight being in breech up to 22”.

The barrel bands on the pedersoli 1763/66 dont’ match any pattern, they’re thick placed incorrectly, and add a lot of weight becuase they’re so needlessly heavier. An original 1763 musket had a unique barrel band system that used a long rammer guide that was riveted from the front band and sistered to the middle band. Sometimes called a spring, it acted more Ike a gutter or guide as the musket also had a rammer spoon pinned beneath the breech. An original 1763 middle and front band were 11 1/2 inches apart, a pedersoli has them set 14 1/2 inches apart, an original 1766 had them around 14” apart.

Ramrod on a 1763/66 pedersoli is not shapped right, they were button shaped and later models were trumpeted. The navy arms rammer is not too bad but would be a later pattern.

To add to the guns weight, the pedersoli sports a massive ramrod that weighs almost over 1lb, the total weight of a pedersoli 1763 is around 11lbs, the heaviest 1763 was around 10.25 lbs.

The pedersoli 1766 lock is massive, like an original 1763 however it is disproportionate in size to an original 1763. An original 1763 has larger springs, and a longer plate. The Italian pattern 1763 has very thick massive internals and smaller springs with a plate that is nearly 1/4 thick at 6 5/16 inches long compared to an original plate that is around 7” long.

The 1763 musket in my opinion was an experimental design that changed many times over before it was finalized int the 1766, some are very heavy to modestly heavy with some being the same weight as a 1766 musket. In the picture Below are two variants, an early 1763 from Marburge and one from charleville around 1764 with the last picture being a 1763/66 pedersoli.

Can a 1763/66 pedersoli be altered to a 1766…. I wouldn’t and have turned down the requests for many reasons, modifications to it would never really match an original within tolerances of what many call a 6ft test. A big reason is the butt stocks, french muskets had a slightly longer butt stock with a swelled cross section that can’t be easily distinguished from photos, you really need to hold an original to get a better understanding of its shape and feel. The lock on a pedersoli charleville is a few ounces too large, as are the bands and the trigger guard needs to be welded from two pieces into one. Ironically the sling swivels are too tiny compared to the originals.

In its original state a pedersoli 1763/66 is really a nice working quality musket. What I’ve done is made new springs, swapped out the frizzen and mainspring to a more french pattern and made a new top jaw screw, as Dave mentioned above. Otherwise reshaping the butt stock by reducting the comb is always an option. The forearms are bit complicated, in that the bands are so large and heavy, reducing the forstock woudln't be wise unless you were going to cut and weld the bands so they fit well after reducing the forestock.

A navy arms miroku charleville is close but still somewhat displaced in size but close enough.

The best option is to restock a navy arms musket from the factory birch stock to a walnut stock with the correct butt stock and forearm patterns for a 1766-1769 pattern (1769 pattern had moved the bayonet lug).

Thank you very much for posting this lengthy and informative tutorial! I love reading about such details, and it's one of my favorite repro muskets. Greatly appreciated!

 

[Clark Badgett]

My Pedersoli kinda looks like that now. Not exactly, but better than before.

 

[FlinterNick]

I think the one that got away from me was a walnut stock. Probably why someone jumped on the "buy now" with four days to go and only one bid. (and it wasn't the guy that put in the one bid, so there were two of us a little too slow to act, hah.)

Most miroku’s were not stocked in walnut, i doubt it was. I’ve only seen one of those in 20 years, i’ve owned many of these and worked on dozens. I came by one stocked in maple, which was pretty nice.

Navy Arms offered the stock in hard maple, or a stock upgrade to Cherry or Walnut in the 1970’s, they were getting the hardware and locks domestically i believe from a company in Reading PA that was a subsidiary to Lyman and they made their own barrels. For the stock it was a choice option but it did not last very long. These were also once piece stocks, not two.

Eventually Miroku picked up the project and patterns and made the stocks in their factory in two pieces, they used some type of Japanese Birch on both their Brown Bess and Charleville.

 

[springfield art]

Most miroku’s were not stocked in walnut, i doubt it was. I’ve only seen one of those in 20 years, i’ve owned many of these and worked on dozens. I came by one stocked in maple, which was pretty nice.

Navy Arms offered the stock in hard maple, or a stock upgrade to Cherry or Walnut in the 1970’s, they were getting the hardware and locks domestically i believe from a company in Reading PA and they made their own barrels. For the stock it was a choice option but it did not last very long. These were also once piece stocks, not two.

Eventually Miroku picked up the project and patterns and made the stocks in their factory in two pieces, they used some type of Japanese Birch on both their Brown Bess and Charleville.

Interesting,

 

[FlinterNick]

Interesting,

The company in Reading PA escapes me, but i do believe it was a subsidiary of Lyman before the molds and patterns were purchased by Miroku.

Many people believe that the miroku reproductions are a copied of original, they’re not, they’re a compilation of copies from templates, dies and molds in the USA.

 

[wiscoaster]

Most miroku’s were not stocked in walnut, i doubt it was. I’ve only seen one of those in 20 years, i’ve owned many of these and worked on dozens. I came by one stocked in maple, which was pretty nice.
....

Not beech. Maple?

Was very nice, whatever.

 

[FlinterNick]

Not beech. Maple?
View attachment 292682View attachment 292683
Was very nice, whatever.

That’s birch, The pores in birch are considerably larger and visible than the pores in beech or maple or walnut at the end grain especially. It’s also a silica heavy wood that blotches when stained, so you end up with light and dark spots.

The wavy rays near the toe look like birch too, in the side by side sample, birch grain and rays have a wavy look that is pretty distinictive.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Question here for the excellent Mr. @dave_person - would you say that the Pedersoli repro of the 1795 Springfield is more faithful to the original than their Charleville?

Mine is basically a carbon copy of the 1766, with exception to the upper band which is rather crapstastic on my 1795. It’s almost prototype looking. The buttstock is close to correct but there is way too much wood everywhere. I still don’t understand why Pedersoli insists on leaving so much wood proud of the metal.

 

[wiscoaster]

That’s birch,

OK, I'll take your word for it 'cuz I'm no expert; it's just I have a number of rifles with beech stocks and none have that kind of figure.

 

[Frontstuffer070]

Wiscoaster,
I wouldn't ever post about a gun you are interested in on a forum, especially one as big as this one. I understand you had questions and that's great and all but be vague and never post about where the gun is for sale. Use the search function read old threads. Nine times out of ten it has been discussed before. I did this twice on another large gun board because like you I needed to know more about the gun I was interested in on Gun Broker. And both times not long after I posted my questions someone snatched them up. Good luck in your search, you will find what you want. Good things come to those who wait.

 

[wiscoaster]

Wiscoaster,
I wouldn't ever post about a gun you are interested in on a forum, especially one as big as this one. I understand you had questions and that's great and all but be vague and never post about where the gun is for sale. Use the search function read old threads. Nine times out of ten it has been discussed before. I did this twice on another large gun board because like you I needed to know more about the gun I was interested in on Gun Broker. And both times not long after I posted my questions someone snatched them up. Good luck in your search, you will find what you want. Good things come to those who wait.

Ya, thanks for your advice, though already know all that, and was intentionally using some subterfuge hoping some member would take a look at the actual gun being offered and give some specific advice on it. I don't think the guy that scored it is a member here because people do tend to use same or similar usernames across platforms, and his GB name doesn't come up as a member here. But I'm in no hurry, and did learn a lot about Mirokus and also about what people are willing to pay for them. Like you said about waiting ....

 

[FlinterNick]

OK, I'll take your word for it 'cuz I'm no expert; it's just I have a number of rifles with beech stocks and none have that kind of figure.

If you want a premium walnut stock get a miroku and have the stock copied . It will cost 400-600 for the stock.

Beech generally is very light with straight rays and medium grain it can be confused with a low figured walnut.

 

[rickystl]

Rick, it also looks like you got one of the walnut stocked models – in my experience those are not common. Congrats!

I guess now I should check to see if it's a one or two piece stock.

Rick

 

[FlinterNick]

I guess now I should check to see if it's a one or two piece stock.

Rick

Most of the navy arms and Dixie gun works miroku’s were sold as Walnut colored, I have a few old Dixie gun works catalogs that even say Walnut stocked, it was very misleading to say the least.

Around 90% of these are stocked in birch.

Years back i had brought a few to stock maker Dave Keck, i had thought they were stocked in maple, he corrected me and showed me the difference between birch and maple.

Dave Stalvo of Lodgewood arms and Jess Melot both confirmed they were imported with two piece birch stocks, Jess has restocked many.

You’d have to find one from a personal collection that was stocked in walnut, navy arms charged a lot extra back in the 1970’s for a bess or charleville stock in american walnut, the auction for Bill Ahearn’s collection author of muskets of the revolution and french and Indian wars had one stocked in premium Walnut that sold for around $1200 back in 2015.

 

[rickystl]

Most of the navy arms and Dixie gun works miroku’s were sold as Walnut colored, I have a few old Dixie gun works catalogs that even say Walnut stocked, it was very misleading to say the least.

Around 90% of these are stocked in birch.

Years back i had brought a few to stock maker Dave Keck, i had thought they were stocked in maple, he corrected me and showed me the difference between birch and maple.

Dave Stalvo of Lodgewood arms and Jess Melot both confirmed they were imported with two piece birch stocks, Jess has restocked many.

You’d have to find one from a personal collection that was stocked in walnut, navy arms charged a lot extra back in the 1970’s for a bess or charleville stock in american walnut, the auction for Bill Ahearn’s collection author of muskets of the revolution and french and Indian wars had one stocked in premium Walnut that sold for around $1200 back in 2015.

Hi Nick

Thanks for your recent Post. I guess I need to check that out too based on what the box label says on my gun. I'm not good with wood identification. Would be nice if mine turned out to be genuine walnut.

Rick

 

[Clark Badgett]

If you want a premium walnut stock get a miroku and have the stock copied . It will cost 400-600 for the stock.

Beech generally is very light with straight rays and medium grain it can be confused with a low figured walnut.


View attachment 292798

Oh how I would love to lay my hands on a good gunstock sized piece of beech. It seems to be about as hard to get as plain European walnut.